Depth representation

[trev]

Hi folks,

From previous responses I understand that bases are supposed to represent the same numbers of troops regardless of type. If this is the case then the skirmish base types (LF, LH) must represent more ranks of real troops. i.e. assuming the men of a MF or HF base are ~3-4 ranks deep, then the equal number of men represented by a LF base must be ~6-8 ranks deep.

Further from this, a LF unit deployed two bases deep represents a unit deployed in ~16 ranks.

Is this the thinking?

I don't mean to be obsessive about scale, I'm just trying to build historical forces and work out which game units correspond to which historical formations.

cheers,

Trev

[dave_r]

It has always been my opinion that the greater depth represents the more spread-out formation rather than a physical increase in ranks.

I always liked the explanation of a skirmisher "cloud", as in reality there would be much fewer men in a LF element than either MF or HF, but they spread out a lot more so cover the same sort of frontage.

MF to me are simply fighting in a looser formation allowing them to go through terrain much quicker cos they aren't as worried about keeping their ranks and files - hence the same amount of men but deeper formation.

Of course I could be completely wrong ...

[Luddite]

I think its worth noting (although i may be wrong), that base depth is essentially a tabletop convention to fit miniatures on and to afford the players a ready recognition of troop types.

At FoG scale and frontage, a typical 4-rank formation will actually occupy perhaps the front 1-2mm of any base (?correct?), so 'base depth' is really there to get the figures glued on

For me, the only important dimension is the 40mm base frontage (is use 15mm figs), and i'm readily using my DBM 15/20mm deep bases as interchangable). The only reason i'm retaining these bases is to allow for competition play (which i assume will simply adopt DBM basing conventions as that's what most tournament players have!).

If i were starting from scratch i think i'd go 6-10mm figs on 1" squares (i have ACW figs based like this and they are very visually appealing), but thats a different story...

[trev]

I think its worth noting (although i may be wrong), that base depth is essentially a tabletop convention to fit miniatures on and to afford the players a ready recognition of troop types.

Hi chaps,

I agree with this but I wasn't actually thinking of the element base depth at all. I meant the depth, in ranks, of the unit(s) that the element represents. If an element of skirmishers represents the same number of notional men and has the same frontage as an element of 'heavier' troops then the light troops must be deployed in greater depth and therefore that type of element must represent a greater number of ranks.

I always liked the explanation of a skirmisher "cloud", as in reality there would be much fewer men in a LF element than either MF or HF, but they spread out a lot more so cover the same sort of frontage.

This is what I expected, I think this is the case in DBM, but in FoG I was told that each element represents the same number of men. This appears to be supported by the Mid Republican Roman list as there are not enough velites if an element of LF represents significantly less men than an element of HF.

MF to me are simply fighting in a looser formation allowing them to go through terrain much quicker cos they aren't as worried about keeping their ranks and files - hence the same amount of men but deeper formation.

I think this is probably the case. i.e. they are in a less rigid or cohesive formation rather than in a more dispersed formation. Because of this, I don't understand the obsession of some with having different figure numbers for HF and MF, as the numbers would be the same and it would presumably have been very difficult to tell at any distance what formation the troops were in. It would also make it easier when deciding how to base your army.

Cheers,

Trev

[Ironhand]

Bear in mind too, that FoG elected to use - wisely in my opinion - an existing and standardized base system that predates DBM. So I really think you're tilting at windmills trying to work out the number of ranks to a base.

[trev]

Bear in mind too, that FoG elected to use - wisely in my opinion - an existing and standardized base system that predates DBM. So I really think you're tilting at windmills trying to work out the number of ranks to a base.

Sorry Ironhand, I don't understand what the basing standard has to do with what I'm asking. I'm just trying to establish what a FoG element of light troops represents. Neither the number of figs on the base nor the depth in millimeters of that element base is relevant to that.

Cheers,

Trev

[willb]

the ancient hellenistic tactical manuals specify a 6 foot frontage per file for open order and a three foot frontage for close order infantry. they also specify 8 rank depths for close or open order. cavalry were supposed to have a 6 foot frontage and an 8 rank depth. so LF would have half the numbers compared to MF or HF.

[Ironhand]

What I'm saying , trev, is that the base size has no correlation whatever to the actual number of ranks, since the original base size was developed for a set of rules whose figure scale was 1:20, then carried over to DBM, and then borrowed yet again for FoG. The base now simply represents whatever number of troops (and ranks) that is convenient. The rules themselves say that there is no fixed figure scale, that the number of troops each base represents can be adjusted up or down depending upon the scenario.

[miffedofreading]

The problem is it is difficult to convert a historical battle to FoG because there is no accepted conversion scale. Say you arbitarily say that a HF base is worth 500 men in a big battle, what is the equivalent LF or CV base worth?

FoG seems to stay very much on the "Game" side of the historical V Game side of the equation in that regard.

The Rules IMPLY that a base can be seen to be 250 men, the implication there is that all bases represent 250 whether they are LF or cavalry or HF. No idea how many chariots or elephants they are supposed to represent.

If the rules authors made it clear what the RELATIVE base size strength represents it would be easier to scale a historical battle to a recreation. So for example do LF and LC bases represent the same number of men as Kn and HF bases or is it for example half?

In game terms all of this is irrelevant, but I do agree that at least an unofficial guideline from the authors on how to rescale a historical battle to be played on the battlefield would be nice.

A favourite game of mine is command and colors ancients. Their figure scale is so wild and wolly, basically they just frig the number of units to make the battle an interesting game with lilttle beyond a passing resemblance to the real battle. Historically this is rubbish, but it does make for an excellent game....

Andy

[trev]

Cheers for the thoughts chaps.

Ironhand, I see what you mean now. thanks. The thing is though, as Andy says, I would be handy if there was a stated relative strength between LF and HF. I am presuming the authors did consider the relative power of historical units when writing the rules.

regards,

Trev

[terrys]

In the early versions of the rules we weren't giving a figure scale at all - Content to state that the scale was variable depending on the size of battle being fought.

We were however pressurised into giving a more formal quote for figure scale, and given that players, could if they wished, work out what the likely figure scale was given the range of bows as a starting point.

The figure scale that we (reluctantly) had to give is based upon troops who fight in close formation.

In Field of Glory, the troop scale can be taken as averaging very approximately 250 men per base,

Each base can be assumed to represent a body of troops in a battle formation of 3 to 5 ranks with
most battle groups being deployed 2 bases deep (6 to 10 ranks).

We haven't made any concessions for elephants, chariots, battlewagons etc, nor any for light foot.
It should be obvious to anyone that elephants aren't deployed in 3 to 5 ranks, and that you can't get 250 of them in the area represented by the base.

For skirmishers (and elephants etc), the important thing is that the army is allowed the correct number of bases to fulfill their historical role.

[miffedofreading]

Thanks for the reply, I do understand that from a "game" point of view the system works fine. Most of the time that is all I am going to use it for playing an 800 point "Game".

If you were trying to refight a historical battle though it would however be nice to work out the relative size of the units to use.

For example does an 8 base HF BG represent the same number of men as an 8 base LF BG?

I could certainly see a logical arguement for saying that it represented a small number of men in the LF BG. The only clue in the army lists is the ratio of figures in a roman legion which strongly implies that a LF base does represent the same number of men as a HF BG.

I am not sure this holds true for the cavalry though?

My own wild guess is that however many men a HF base represents, a chariot base will be at least a half that number, perhaps a third. (scythed chariots even less)

Whatever the scale I guess elephants would work out at 10-20 elephants per base but I don't think that matters too much.

Andy

[ars_belli]

From Terry's reply, it appears that the number of figures per base in FoG depends primarily on two things:

1) the number of men that would typically occupy the frontage/area represented by a base at the chosen ground scale;
2) the number of bases that would be needed for the appropriate tactical usage within that particular army.

Given FoG's "top-down" design philosophy, that seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it actually provides a great deal of flexibility for those of us who like to wargame historical scenarios. So fielding bases of LF velites representing the same number of men (e.g. 300 per base) as HF hastati/principes may indeed work best within a Mid-Republican Roman legion. At the same time, a single base of elephants will clearly need to represent a much smaller number of real-life creatures, if they are going to have anything like their historical effect on the tabletop. Likewise for chariots and artillery, and also light foot, cavalry, light horse, etc. - if deemed necessary to achieve the proper historical battlefield effect.

The key will be determining the ratio that will achieve the correct historical representation for each troop type in a particular battle. I think that these sorts of experiments and discussions would be great topics to include in AAR's based on historical scenarios.

Cheers,
Scott

[lawrenceg]

IMO a base contains whatever number of men would normally have fought on that frontage at the appropriate depth to give the game equivalent combat effectiveness.

So for troops that normally fight two bases deep then two bases equals the number of men that normally fought on a frontage of 1 base. For 15 mm figs, 1 base = 40 mm and effective bow range = 200 mm = say 150 metres.

From that you work out the number of men per base. It might not be the same for all troop types, or the same troop type in different armies. For example, American stone age warriors might need more men for the same effect as Medieval troops armed and armoured with steel.

I also note that one rank of cavalry bases fights and evades almost identically to two bases of LH, which suggests that a cavalry base represents twice as many men as a LH base.

So for historical refights I would work on frontages rather than numbers of men.

[trev]

For skirmishers (and elephants etc), the important thing is that the army is allowed the correct number of bases to fulfill their historical role.

So does the Republican Roman army have enough velites to perform their historical role? It appears not, as there are only enough to cover half the frontage of the Hastati & Principes to the optimum game depth of two bases deep. This would be fine if the velites historically only formed a thin screen but as far as I am aware, there is no evidence to suggest this. Further their numbers seems to suggest a depth of 6-8 ranks, which is similar to the depth Will says was typical for Hellenistic practice.

This is the nub of my confusion. The game system seems to suggest that typical deployment depth for skirmishers is two bases but the list restricts the Republican Romans to only half this, which seems to go against Terry's statement that the important thing is the historical role.

regards,

Trev

[terrys]

This is the nub of my confusion. The game system seems to suggest that typical deployment depth for skirmishers is two bases but the list restricts the Republican Romans to only half this, which seems to go against Terry's statement that the important thing is the historical role.

It depends upon what you consider their historical role to be.
If you wish to use them as a screen in front of your legionaries to annoy enemy foot warriors , then it's perfectly reasonable to use them in one rank. In fact it's preferable - because they then couldn't end up split after evading.
The objective would be to advance within charge reach of the enemy, but with your legionaries 3MUs behind (so that they don't have to test not to charge themselves). Some of the enemy will fail their test to charge, which will break up their battleline, leaving the legionaries the opportunity to attack with overlaps.

While the rules make LF better in 2 ranks in most situations, there are sometimes perfectly valid reasons for using them in a single rank. (as above - and have you ever tried using LF in forests or villages?)

[nikgaukroger]

To be honest they can act to screen, etc. perfectly well when deployed in 2 ranks even if they don't cover the whole frontage of the Hastati/Principes. If there were more bases of them it would, almost certainly, distort the representation of the army's effect on the table top - and we all know what heppens if skirmishers are too powerful/over represented don't we

[trev]

To be honest they can act to screen, etc. perfectly well when deployed in 2 ranks even if they don't cover the whole frontage of the Hastati/Principes. If there were more bases of them it would, almost certainly, distort the representation of the army's effect on the table top - and we all know what heppens if skirmishers are too powerful/over represented don't we

Okay, thanks, the over-representation point makes sense. So effectively then a LF base does represent a similar number of men to a HF base and deploying the velites two bases deep would be as if there were more than 1200 in a legion.

Cheers for the input all. Now it just remains to be seen how we get on against the effete Easterners with their long sticks.

Trev

[Ironhand]

I play mostly historical scenarios, and I don't think I'll have any problem converting any of them to FoG. I'm working on some now in fact. I think the trick is to keep troop types in the same proportion they were in the prototype, and find a convenient number of battle groups that makes the tabletop army look and perform as closely as possible to the real one.

That 1:250 number that Nik gave out is certainly a convenient starting point. Thanks Nik!

[Kineas1]

And note what the FoG folks said about depths. Way back in this thread, somebody said "the Hellenistic tactical manuals say" but there's considerable doubt about whether these are tactical manuals or arithmetic manuals written for boys who liked war... it has always seemed unlikely that skirmishers fought in anything resembling eight ranks... what would be the benefit? A deep screen would be a brutally hard formation to maintain over any distance, much less over difficult ground. Undrilled skirmishers, mounted or foot, are more likely to be in cohesive little groups, with distances between groups--something that I seem to remember the rules actually suggest!

Bases are an abstraction. I play LH armies, and I tell newcomers that a 4 or 6 base LH unit represents something like an electron orbital path--the number of mounted warriors is somewhere under those bases, or that's the highest probability of where they are...